This is not complicated, Tom. Even those who have never taken a course in formal logic in their lives can generally recognize these when they come up.

Forgive me for assuming you at least knew what the most basic fallacies out there are. I'll be sure not to give you that sort of credit in the future.

Lol. none of those actually apply. It's perfectly logical conclusion to assume that things that appear designed, are designed, even if that's false. It's neither a non-sequitur, bare assertion, of false comparison.

Most competent professional atheists, like Dawkins, Dennett, all recognize the appearance of teleology, why such conclusions are intuitive/logical, etc.. even these conclusion are false.. and they argue against it the way one would argue that natural sphinx wasn't created, but carved by wind and rain, or why the watchmaker is blind. You on the other hand are clueless, but that likely won't be apparent to you in the vacuum chamber you hide out in.

"Tell me, muse, of the storyteller who has been thrust to the edge of the world, both an infant and an ancient, and through him reveal everyman." ---Homer the aged poet.

"In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."

(13-02-2017 02:25 PM)Chas Wrote: No, you fucking lying twat, I do not do so unreservedly. Your paraphrase of my position is therefore a lie.

Stop doing that.

Pointing out that you and I both agree that the position is logical is not a lie, you old fart, it's a verifiable fact.

It is a lie because I qualified it and you keep leaving that out.

Quote:It's like me and you agreeing that you're bald, only to have you accuse me of lying when I point out that we agree about this, for leaving out that you also mentioned your 4inch penis size. Your penis size has nothing to do with a discussion about whether your bald, just like your additional input has nothing to do with whether it's logical or not.

We agree on the logical parts, that all I've stated, you cranky old geezer, lol.

It is not the same, asshole.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.

Your comparison to the sphinx scenario is false, because the sphinx conclusion is influenced by the fact that the thing being observed is extremely similar to something that is known to be designed and is located in an area where the designers are known to operate. Neither of these things are true with teleology.

Which makes all premises of a given teleological argument either bare assertion or non sequitur.

So... yes. They all apply, and you still fail to understand even the most basic concepts of logic.

"Owl," said Rabbit shortly, "you and I have brains. The others have fluff. If there is any thinking to be done in this Forest - and when I say thinking I mean thinking - you and I must do it." - A. A. Milne, The House at Pooh Corner

Plenty of atheists recognize the appearance of design, and would just argue that the appearance of design is just an illusion. Take Dawkins for instance: "How else could there be life, in all its rich diversity, with every species looking uncannily as though it had been 'designed'?...Far from pointing to a designer, the illusion of design in the living world is explained with far greater economy and with devastating
elegance by Darwinian natural selection."

"Natural selection is the champion crane of all time. It has lifted life
from primeval simplicity to the dizzy heights of complexity, beauty
and apparent design that dazzle us today."

In fact this perception is so prevalent, it's nearly avoidable when describing biological functions, even if only used analogously.

The appearance of design is so prevalent, that it's documented in children at very early age, even when religious upbringing is not present. Life may in fact not be design, but it's overwhelmed by the appearance of it.

And judging that atheists can just have just as easily acknowledged this appearance, as theists have, it goes without saying that we see the same thing, like two people recognizing that that stone formation in Pakistan looks like a sphinx.

"Tell me, muse, of the storyteller who has been thrust to the edge of the world, both an infant and an ancient, and through him reveal everyman." ---Homer the aged poet.

"In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."

(13-02-2017 03:37 PM)Unbeliever Wrote: Your comparison to the sphinx scenario is false, because the sphinx conclusion is influenced by the fact that the thing being observed is extremely similar to something that is known to be designed and is located in an area where the designers are known to operate.

None of which is actually required for the conclusion to be logical. If we found what looked like a dwelling on mars, what look like carved sculptures, pots, on another planet, we might assume they were created by some unknown alien who has not been observed, and who has not yet been discovered. It's a logical inference, even if the conclusion is false, and in reality was the result non-intentional forces.

It's perfectly logical to conclude that things, that appears as if they're the product of foresight, and intention, were the result of foresight and intention. Even if this logical conclusion is false.

"Tell me, muse, of the storyteller who has been thrust to the edge of the world, both an infant and an ancient, and through him reveal everyman." ---Homer the aged poet.

"In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."

(13-02-2017 03:37 PM)Chas Wrote: It is a lie because I qualified it and you keep leaving that out.

And your qualifications were irrelevant to my point. With or without those qualifications, we both agree it's a logical conclusion.

To borrow the bald Chas example, it's to acknowledge that we both agree that you're bald, and leaving out the that you qualified your baldness as the result of a botched surgery to lengthen your small penis size. While that's all sad and tragic, that qualification is not relevant to the agreement that you're bald.

"Tell me, muse, of the storyteller who has been thrust to the edge of the world, both an infant and an ancient, and through him reveal everyman." ---Homer the aged poet.

"In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."

(13-02-2017 03:37 PM)Unbeliever Wrote: You cannot even show appearance of design, Tom.

To who?

To anyone.

You can't even coherently define what "design" would look like, so establishing that there is an appearance of it is rather nonsensical.

(13-02-2017 04:40 PM)Tomasia Wrote:

(13-02-2017 03:37 PM)Unbeliever Wrote: Your comparison to the sphinx scenario is false, because the sphinx conclusion is influenced by the fact that the thing being observed is extremely similar to something that is known to be designed and is located in an area where the designers are known to operate.

None of which is actually required for the conclusion to be logical.

Yes, it is.

(13-02-2017 04:40 PM)Tomasia Wrote: If we found what looked like a dwelling on mars

Then you're still talking about finding something that we already know is designed, and the comparison is still false.

"Owl," said Rabbit shortly, "you and I have brains. The others have fluff. If there is any thinking to be done in this Forest - and when I say thinking I mean thinking - you and I must do it." - A. A. Milne, The House at Pooh Corner

You can't even coherently define what "design" would look like, so establishing that there is an appearance of it is rather nonsensical.

If everyone acknowledges the same perception, the appearance of design, then who am I suppose to show this too?

Most people, including atheists are able to recognize that various biological part, with the intricacies and function, appear as if they were engineered, even though they were not. As if they formed through foresight, and intention, in fact without the theory of evolution, it would be quite difficult to see it any other way. And as previously indicated in the wiki on teleology in biology, that perceptions is so prevalent, that we can't even escape using it analogously.

It seems a point that seems rather obvious to folks like Dawkins, Dennett, even to my atheist biology teacher, is one that seems to allude you? Like the man who doesn't see a sphinx in the Pakistani rock formation.

I'm curious if you might be autistic, or on the autistic spectrum?

"Tell me, muse, of the storyteller who has been thrust to the edge of the world, both an infant and an ancient, and through him reveal everyman." ---Homer the aged poet.

"In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."

You can't even coherently define what "design" would look like, so establishing that there is an appearance of it is rather nonsensical.

If everyone acknowledges the same perception, the appearance of design

They don't.

(13-02-2017 06:01 PM)Tomasia Wrote: then who am I suppose to show this too?

Anyone that you want to waste time pretending that your position is at all logical or rational.

It's a simple question, Tom, if your position has any value in it at all. In what way would a universe designed for us look different from a universe that is not?

"Owl," said Rabbit shortly, "you and I have brains. The others have fluff. If there is any thinking to be done in this Forest - and when I say thinking I mean thinking - you and I must do it." - A. A. Milne, The House at Pooh Corner